Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

To often modern Aikido is not really tested against full resistance. The Shodokan school of Aikido and a few would be Aikidoka attempt to test there Aikido techniques against full resistance. They are usually ridiculed for their attempts and not appreciated for their efforts to prove or disprove a technique. The realities of a fully resisting uke makes the Aikido techniques sometimes unrecognizable, sometimes they simply are too difficult to apply. Maybe some techniques simply just don't work. Some in the Aikido world seem to have a difficult time accepting this reality. The below clip shows the Tomiki Aikido randori (toshu randori). Great to see some real resistance vs demonstration. I would love to hear from those who accept this reality and share your thoughts.

Well, I am not sure I agree with you. At least not completly.
Yet I do plan on responding.
Do note one thing - I do not come from Aikikai, rather from Korindo. And from a teacher who teaches Korindo as well as Karate and Karate (all of which he learned to high level seperatly, and is teaching as seperate Martial Arts). Further, our society is closer to over-fighting rather then spirtual, thus my Sensei normally tries to hold the horses from runing wildly rather then encourage them to increase the pace.

Quote:

Janet Rosen wrote:

Salim, while I think I see what you are getting at, I also think there is another way to frame the intent of aikido.
If somebody is actively resisting a particular aikido technique, trying to impose that technique is NOT doing aikido.
If the attacker continually resists, then in essence, the attack itself is continually changing, and the response has to be continually changing, and the result would look like counters and reversals.

This is my main problem with resisting. One should realize the essence they are practicing as they work on it. There is a difference between training Kata to training Randori \ Kyoshu to doing a Shihai. As for the latter, one should also be aware if the victory in a Shihai becomes his goal or is it just another step in the road.
In Korindo we have Kata and Randori\Kyoshu, but no Shihai. I have seen the importance of Randori\Kyoshu and some effects of lack of it, with people coming from other Aikido groups. I have also had the pleasure of training with a Tomiki\Shodokan member and did not have any difficulty.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

In Aikido the uke never has the desire to "win". So this makes it easy for nage to throw uke, even if uke is "better" then nage. This is why white belts can toss black belts with such beautiful throws. This is why Aikido always looks the way it does, there is no desire for uke to defeat nage.

Quote:

Salim Shaw wrote:

I agree with you totally. Unfortunately most Aikidoka, especially many in the Aikikai organization, think demonstrations are realistic self defense scenarios. They think static movements, flowing movements with grace, is the way Aikido replicates upon every scenario. Not at all the case in a real altercation, not even the case when you are angry with your 4th degree sensei who you try to test.

Most Aikido practice we see is Kata and it is pre-scripted as such. Further, Uke role is very diificult in this Kata - he should provide honest attack and responses limited to the Kata script, and at the same time Uke is learning how to "recieve" and be soft and receptive.
"Kata" is a learning tool. As such, it does not have to be realistic. It has to have methodical merit. Some people delude themselves into different beliefs. I doubt how many of them are veterans.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Another example would be when two competitors of equal ability match, but one is seriously invested in winning, while the other really doesn't want to win. Sometimes you see this in competitive martial arts like Judo, but this can more often be seen in a street fight. When one guy wants to win at any cost, and the other just doesn't want to get hurt. The one with less desire will almost always lose, even if he has more ability then his attacker.

The desire to "win" often makes it impossible to use clean, effortless technique. You'll see during the match that if you just force this, or that a little bit, you could achieve victory. Now a philosophical argument could be made that, if you'd just give up your desire to "win", you could always have clean effective technique. That is true, but then you'll have to face the fact that if you ever get into a fight with someone with slightly less ability then you, but much more desire to win, you'll always lose. When your children's lives are on the line that's not really an option, you want to win.

The last section contradicts itself. If lack of desire will make you lose always, what is the point of a "perfect technique"?

For the best of my understanding, the Japanese believed in "empty mind", "wishing while not" and "being ready to die" instead of strong desire to win, as a way of achieving victory. I think this belief \ concept is fundamental in many JMA.

Quote:

Salim Shaw wrote:

I tested my sensei once. He had to grab me to restrain the array of punches and kicks that were stinging him. I landed several low kicks that he was not able to stop and punched him pretty hard a couple of times to the face. Once he was in close, then he was able to execute an Aikido technique. My weakness was ground fighting and close proximity at the time. He applied what I think was probably a half Koshinage technique, then applied a choke to restrain me. He choked me pretty hard to make me stop. Really nothing like the thousands of Aikido demonstrations in the videos. I asked, what happen to the the crisp, pretty Aikido techniques. He stated there is Aikido for showing the technique fully and there is Aikido for self defense which sometimes needs to slightly adapt to the situation. I think realism is severely overlooked to often.

At least the way I am taught Korindo Aikido. Grabs are not encouraged at all, and one (at 4th Dan level ) should respond to strikes as well as he responds to grabs. Of course, you might be the superior fighter, but that would have nothing to do with the M.A.

Hope my concept came out from my comments. I am not against some resistance while training. I am pro methodical usage of resistance and co-operation. I like Randori, yet ou form of Randori is virtually resistance less, we strive to never resist, instead we wish to be soft and responsive and use any opening to counter. When one tries to resist with strength, he becomes rigid and loses more then he gained. This is the way to win today, but learn nothing. When we practice Randori, our wish is to evolve and improve via learning, not to win.

The last section contradicts itself. If lack of desire will make you lose always, what is the point of a "perfect technique"?

For the best of my understanding, the Japanese believed in "empty mind", "wishing while not" and "being ready to die" instead of strong desire to win, as a way of achieving victory. I think this belief \ concept is fundamental in many JMA.

Amir

Perfect technique is a goal unto itself, it has no attachment to winning. From the later samurai works like Hagakure, I'm sure that you are correct, the samurai would say that perfection of self is victory. However This may mean you will lose the fight.

As I said it's a philosophical debate; you can have perfect clean technique, but if you face someone who approximates your ability, who will sacrifice perfect, clean technique to achive victory, you will most likely lose the conflict. This would mean if you're fighting for something you value beyond your own existence that will be lost as well (your family, a gold metal, respect, etc.).

Now in training, this philosophy is a great one. It doesn't really matter if you win or lose your little dojo randori, nothing is on the line. You should be willing to sacrifice a small victory in order to achieve prefect technique.

The problem with Kata is that you never face the pressure you will face against resistance. Thus you will never acclimate yourself to using your technique under pressure. If you can do ikkyo a million times perfectly in kata, that has very little bearing on how you will do it once under pressure, in an ever changing situation.

The problem with Kata is that you never face the pressure you will face against resistance. Thus you will never acclimate yourself to using your technique under pressure. If you can do ikkyo a million times perfectly in kata, that has very little bearing on how you will do it once under pressure, in an ever changing situation.

You make some great points in your last post Chris but I respectfully disagree with this statement...If one does Kata with diligence and focus the results will be that you will prevail in 95% of any encounter. At least that is my experience....
I will be honest here.Because of some current life events I am a Martial Arts Hobbiest not a Martial Artist.I hope to get back to practice every day a few hours a day but at most I do only an hour or two. This is what separates the Hobbiest from the Artist. The time I spend practicing by myself. The time I spend doing Kata and Solo training. That is true with any Martial Practice. If you only "do it in the Dojo" well then at best you're a rank amateur with dangerous mindset in the context of this discussion. I harp on my fellow Aikidoka all the time not to expect to be any good at Aikido if all they do is come to the Dojo a few times a week. Kata and Solo training are essential foundations to good practice and your Martial Effectiveness.

I have stayed out of this discussion until now because I have not seen anything yet that qualifies as "full resistance" in my mind. I have seen folks doing bad Judo some grappling and battling the mad hand of ikkyo and nikkyo. LOL

Where's the Atemi and Foot Sweeps? Again it's just my opinion if someone grabs you and locks you up you better find something to hit otherwise you're just dancing. Unless of course It is JUDO I am watching and not Aikido.

Where's the Atemi and Foot Sweeps? Again it's just my opinion if someone grabs you and locks you up you better find something to hit otherwise you're just dancing. Unless of course It is JUDO I am watching and not Aikido.

William Hazen[/quote]

Doing atemi or tasabaki for the sake of just doing it and catching a punch to the face, just doesn't make sense. You perform those moves when it is warranted. If you can't calculate a technique with some accuracy, then why do it in this situation. The videos are not demonstrations. Demonstrations you can plan for atemi or tasabaki, to accomplish those pretty dance flows in Aikido.

Doing atemi or tasabaki for the sake of just doing it and catching a punch to the face, just doesn't make sense. You perform those moves when it is warranted. If you can't calculate a technique with some accuracy, then why do it in this situation. The videos are not demonstrations. Demonstrations you can plan for atemi or tasabaki, to accomplish those pretty dance flows in Aikido.

Actually the Spear system stuff by Blauer is of great interest to me. A LEO friend of mine turned me on to them a while back. I really like the video you can find on youtube where he talks about the flinch response. In our style we have an exercise called shomenuchi ikkyo undo (don't know how many groups do this movement). My sensei have always been adamant that we train constantly to get the hands up immediately at the sign of anything incoming. I've been taught that it needs to be a basic reflex much like these guys teach it as a basic "flinch" response.

I think Blauer is dead on. I have not been formally trained by Blauer Co, but have used his equipment and methodology. I use his startle/flinch concept as the basis for what I teach. Actually I find it works very well incoroporated in aikido waza. Essentially a good kamae and hamni posture.

I have my doubts about resistance. That's mainly a competition thing, like in judo: not wanting to be thrown. The attacker attitude is not 'not being beaten', but to beat up the other guy. So, attackers tend to be very aggressively offensive, not defensive at all.
An aikido that aims for "realism" should base its solutions on that.

Thinking of this thread, and the atemi one, I made a short film yesterday after class, trying some atemi applications and a couple of aikido techniques in a way that I regard as "realistic".
No doubt, that will be questioned

Thinking of this thread, and the atemi one, I made a short film yesterday after class, trying some atemi applications and a couple of aikido techniques in a way that I regard as "realistic".
No doubt, that will be questioned

Or you can *not* put your arms up. That way when you're lying on the ground bleeding out of your ears from a hard punch to the head you can confidently say you didn't allow them to put on that old-school ikkyo...

To raise, or not to raise: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them...

Quote:

William Hazen wrote:

If one does Kata with diligence and focus the results will be that you will prevail in 95% of any encounter. At least that is my experience....

Mine is different.

Quote:

Stefan Stenudd wrote:

The attacker attitude is not 'not being beaten', but to beat up the other guy. So, attackers tend to be very aggressively offensive, not defensive at all.
An aikido that aims for "realism" should base its solutions on that.

I mostly agree but attackers also doesn't want to be beaten in the process, so they can switch from offensive to defensive mode. A fight/sd situation is a very complex thing, both physical and psichological.

Quote:

Stefan Stenudd wrote:

I made a short film yesterday after class, trying some atemi applications and a couple of aikido techniques in a way that I regard as "realistic".
No doubt, that will be questioned

Liked the video, even if I haven't found it very realistic, especially uke's reaction to strikes.

Perfect technique is a goal unto itself, it has no attachment to winning. From the later samurai works like Hagakure, I'm sure that you are correct, the samurai would say that perfection of self is victory. However This may mean you will lose the fight.

As I said it's a philosophical debate; you can have perfect clean technique, but if you face someone who approximates your ability, who will sacrifice perfect, clean technique to achive victory, you will most likely lose the conflict. This would mean if you're fighting for something you value beyond your own existence that will be lost as well (your family, a gold metal, respect, etc.).

Now in training, this philosophy is a great one. It doesn't really matter if you win or lose your little dojo randori, nothing is on the line. You should be willing to sacrifice a small victory in order to achieve prefect technique.

The problem with Kata is that you never face the pressure you will face against resistance. Thus you will never acclimate yourself to using your technique under pressure. If you can do ikkyo a million times perfectly in kata, that has very little bearing on how you will do it once under pressure, in an ever changing situation.

Chris

Mostly, I agree with you.

However, to the best of my understanding, a clean technique is not (and also was not in the past) a goal by itself rather a means to an end, just like winning a practice Randori is not a goal. As your techniques become better, they become more practical, and you can use them in a wider range of technical situations. And much more important, if you practice correctly, as your techniques would be better, so would be your tai-sabaki, your timing and your ability to realize situations, identify options and take advantage.

I did not propose to place technique as your goal when you fight, but practice is not fighting. I do propose to strive towards fighting in almost thoughtless state - thinking on strategy as the mind and body resolve the technical situation without conscious thought. To my understanding, this way was proposed by those who won fights, as a way of further improving their ability. I do not claim I am capable of acting this way, just to strive there. If I were in a fight, I would fight with all my being, including my Korindo Aikido knowledge, but not limited to it.
The way I am taught teaches us, that Randori/Kyoshu/"free play" is not a fight it is another means of learning, just like Kata is. Each of those has goals, advantages and limitations. In Kata practice we can focus on the technique, we can learn the opportunity for a specific response, but our learning is limited, and we learn a certain logic of responses. In Randori we learn to adapt, to identify intentions, to move between techniques, as the level rises in Randori we also learn to counter, and to close our openings.
For some reason, it seems to me like most of you here talk of resistance but focus on "resistance by force", using superior force to prevent Tori from achieving his current technique. This type of resstance is not acceptable in my Dojo. We assume the other person is always stronger.
At my current level, if my teacher catches me acting this way, he would stop the Randori and berate me in front of the all group. Thus, I should not force a technique against resistance, I would switch to a new technique adequate to the new situation. And I should not resist a technique, I should receive it, and create an opening and utilize the opening to escape and counter (with any technique, strike or kick or throw …). True, to succeed in either I must be the technical superior (or have my Sempai training partner allow me to succeed – he too should know we learn and not fight).
It took me years to understand the above concept logically. And I admit, at times I too "forget" all about it in Randori practice and let my Ego rise, and then my Sensei berates me for "hunting techniques" or resisting in a foolish manner. In our dojo, over time, I keep training Randori with lots of beginners who have yet to realize this, and so they fight to win in Randori rather then train to learn. So I often train against a person fighting, one should do it once in a while, to remember how others fight, but if you over do it, your Aikido will not progress.

One last comment. All the above is from the perspective of an Amateur, far from being a martial artist, and lately, hardly practicing once a week (for a while). I do not have any illusions about my ability in a fight – I would do as I can, and just hope it is enough.

I have my doubts about resistance. That's mainly a competition thing, like in judo: not wanting to be thrown. The attacker attitude is not 'not being beaten', but to beat up the other guy. So, attackers tend to be very aggressively offensive, not defensive at all.
An aikido that aims for "realism" should base its solutions on that.

Thinking of this thread, and the atemi one, I made a short film yesterday after class, trying some atemi applications and a couple of aikido techniques in a way that I regard as "realistic".
No doubt, that will be questioned

Wow, impressive video. Probably one of the best atemi videos on youtube, that I have seen. Keep up the good work. I still think a resisting uke provides a level of realism for testing a technique. I mean the uke should not cooperate when you apply a technique.

However, to the best of my understanding, a clean technique is not (and also was not in the past) a goal by itself rather a means to an end, just like winning a practice Randori is not a goal. As your techniques become better, they become more practical, and you can use them in a wider range of technical situations. And much more important, if you practice correctly, as your techniques would be better, so would be your tai-sabaki, your timing and your ability to realize situations, identify options and take advantage.

I did not propose to place technique as your goal when you fight, but practice is not fighting. I do propose to strive towards fighting in almost thoughtless state - thinking on strategy as the mind and body resolve the technical situation without conscious thought. To my understanding, this way was proposed by those who won fights, as a way of further improving their ability. I do not claim I am capable of acting this way, just to strive there. If I were in a fight, I would fight with all my being, including my Korindo Aikido knowledge, but not limited to it.
The way I am taught teaches us, that Randori/Kyoshu/"free play" is not a fight it is another means of learning, just like Kata is. Each of those has goals, advantages and limitations. In Kata practice we can focus on the technique, we can learn the opportunity for a specific response, but our learning is limited, and we learn a certain logic of responses. In Randori we learn to adapt, to identify intentions, to move between techniques, as the level rises in Randori we also learn to counter, and to close our openings.
For some reason, it seems to me like most of you here talk of resistance but focus on "resistance by force", using superior force to prevent Tori from achieving his current technique. This type of resstance is not acceptable in my Dojo. We assume the other person is always stronger.
At my current level, if my teacher catches me acting this way, he would stop the Randori and berate me in front of the all group. Thus, I should not force a technique against resistance, I would switch to a new technique adequate to the new situation. And I should not resist a technique, I should receive it, and create an opening and utilize the opening to escape and counter (with any technique, strike or kick or throw …). True, to succeed in either I must be the technical superior (or have my Sempai training partner allow me to succeed -- he too should know we learn and not fight).
It took me years to understand the above concept logically. And I admit, at times I too "forget" all about it in Randori practice and let my Ego rise, and then my Sensei berates me for "hunting techniques" or resisting in a foolish manner. In our dojo, over time, I keep training Randori with lots of beginners who have yet to realize this, and so they fight to win in Randori rather then train to learn. So I often train against a person fighting, one should do it once in a while, to remember how others fight, but if you over do it, your Aikido will not progress.

One last comment. All the above is from the perspective of an Amateur, far from being a martial artist, and lately, hardly practicing once a week (for a while). I do not have any illusions about my ability in a fight -- I would do as I can, and just hope it is enough.

Amir

Mere rhetoric patterns, but not reality. Maybe it's the other way around. Really hard to judge abilities typing a few words of enjoyment, to tickle your fancy. Flabby simple mentality can be a waste of time.

However, to the best of my understanding, a clean technique is not (and also was not in the past) a goal by itself rather a means to an end, just like winning a practice Randori is not a goal. As your techniques become better, they become more practical, and you can use them in a wider range of technical situations. And much more important, if you practice correctly, as your techniques would be better, so would be your tai-sabaki, your timing and your ability to realize situations, identify options and take advantage.

I did not propose to place technique as your goal when you fight, but practice is not fighting. I do propose to strive towards fighting in almost thoughtless state - thinking on strategy as the mind and body resolve the technical situation without conscious thought. To my understanding, this way was proposed by those who won fights, as a way of further improving their ability. I do not claim I am capable of acting this way, just to strive there. If I were in a fight, I would fight with all my being, including my Korindo Aikido knowledge, but not limited to it.
The way I am taught teaches us, that Randori/Kyoshu/"free play" is not a fight it is another means of learning, just like Kata is. Each of those has goals, advantages and limitations. In Kata practice we can focus on the technique, we can learn the opportunity for a specific response, but our learning is limited, and we learn a certain logic of responses. In Randori we learn to adapt, to identify intentions, to move between techniques, as the level rises in Randori we also learn to counter, and to close our openings.
For some reason, it seems to me like most of you here talk of resistance but focus on "resistance by force", using superior force to prevent Tori from achieving his current technique. This type of resstance is not acceptable in my Dojo. We assume the other person is always stronger.
At my current level, if my teacher catches me acting this way, he would stop the Randori and berate me in front of the all group. Thus, I should not force a technique against resistance, I would switch to a new technique adequate to the new situation. And I should not resist a technique, I should receive it, and create an opening and utilize the opening to escape and counter (with any technique, strike or kick or throw …). True, to succeed in either I must be the technical superior (or have my Sempai training partner allow me to succeed -- he too should know we learn and not fight).
It took me years to understand the above concept logically. And I admit, at times I too "forget" all about it in Randori practice and let my Ego rise, and then my Sensei berates me for "hunting techniques" or resisting in a foolish manner. In our dojo, over time, I keep training Randori with lots of beginners who have yet to realize this, and so they fight to win in Randori rather then train to learn. So I often train against a person fighting, one should do it once in a while, to remember how others fight, but if you over do it, your Aikido will not progress.

One last comment. All the above is from the perspective of an Amateur, far from being a martial artist, and lately, hardly practicing once a week (for a while). I do not have any illusions about my ability in a fight -- I would do as I can, and just hope it is enough.

Amir

Mere rhetoric patterns, but not reality. Maybe it's the other way around. Really hard to judge abilities typing a few words of enjoyment, to tickle your fancy.

I still think a resisting uke provides a level of realism for testing a technique. I mean the uke should not cooperate when you apply a technique.

That is difficult to show in a video. Real resistance sometimes results in really "rude" solutions
It's not that the techniques change significantly (except for speed and force, maybe), but in practice it can lead to unacceptable risks. I'll try some more videos, and we'll see if I get closer to capturing what I mean.

It's not that the techniques change significantly (except for speed and force, maybe), but in practice it can lead to unacceptable risks.

If the shodothugs can do it, everybody can.

BTW, what are "unnaceptable risks" for you?, for instance, in the clips you can see in this worth reading article written by forum member D. Valadez show a (for me) safe training environment even if there is spontaneity and opposition.

I have my doubts about resistance. That's mainly a competition thing, like in judo: not wanting to be thrown. The attacker attitude is not 'not being beaten', but to beat up the other guy. So, attackers tend to be very aggressively offensive, not defensive at all.
An aikido that aims for "realism" should base its solutions on that.

Thinking of this thread, and the atemi one, I made a short film yesterday after class, trying some atemi applications and a couple of aikido techniques in a way that I regard as "realistic".
No doubt, that will be questioned

BTW, what are "unnaceptable risks" for you?, for instance, in the clips you can see in this worth reading article written by forum member D. Valadez show a (for me) safe training environment even if there is spontaneity and opposition.
Do your think Valadez and his deshi are taking unnaceptable risks?

Well, they have gloves

I had a quick glance at the videos, which start getting interesting by #3 and #4. In #3, the one on top is using empi, the elbow strike, on the head and neck area of his opponent. I can't speak for those guys, but I could not allow myself to do that in keiko, at least not with "realistic" speed and force. To me, that would be an unacceptable risk.
That doesn't mean I don't know how to do it. It is because I know how to do it that I take special care in keiko. I think that most or all of us do.

On my video I mentioned before, I do some empi, but I stop before actually hitting. I believe that it's clear on the videos what would happen if I did not.
On that video I also show some maegeri, but again with reduced speed and power, for safety reasons. The first kick on the video was a surprise to my attacker, so his reaction was quite "realistic". I kept it in for that reason, and for the humor of it
Again, I know how to kick with more power than that. You learn it, even when you hold back at normal keiko.

A friend of mine, who was an excellent karateka, did slow-motion on most of his classes. Even jodan mawashigeri (roundhouse kick to the head) and such, which is not easy in slow-motion. That way, he and his students learned to do the same techniques very fast. Very fast, indeed.
The way to "realistic" budo is not always what meets the eye, so to speak.

If one wants to practice using Aikido with "full resistance" Atemi must be considered otherwise you have bad Judo. LOL

For two reasons, atemi should be considered:
1 ) Atemi are often part of how to ensure the success of a technique.
2) If uke is confident that tori will make no strikes or kicks, uke's behavior is not "realistic" at all.

Respectfully,
"Aikido is non-resistance. As it is non-resistant, it is always victorious. Those who have a warped mind, a mind of discord, have been defeated from the beginning."- My Boss

Our task is to train until we understand why.

Best,
Jen

Worth repeating, if I do say so myself. Unless this is at least in the background of your thinking you will disscet yourself to pieces,never reaching an understanding or wholeness. Just one fragment of argument
after another. So seek to problem solve, but keep the founders words in mind.
Onegaishinmasu.

1 ) Atemi are often part of how to ensure the success of a technique.
2) If uke is confident that tori will make no strikes or kicks, uke's behavior is not "realistic" at all.

Amen to that! The attacker in the Shodokan knife competition clips, for instance, would be approaching the defender rather differently if he knew he could be struck in the groin or face. I've seen this effect in randori often. When the attacker knows a technique may be accompanied by a blow or two, he/she doesn't approach nage with the same confidence and recklessness that you see typically in randori where strikes by the defender are prohibited.

"Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend."